I suddenly realize this theory doesn't seem so crazy. It actually seems scarily believable. Stanley could only just barely see Maggie and her voice was distorted. She didn't say anything that Charlie wouldn't know, plus now would be a awfully good time for Charlie to strike at Gobwin Knob with Natural Allies. I'm reading and rereading the epilogue looking for some evidence that this really is Maggie talking, and I can't find anything. Why exactly can't Maggie put Parson on the thinkagram?

Also, if this IS Charlie doing a prank call, it GIVES him pertinent information. Namely, weather Stanley is an enemy, or just Parson. Remember, when Jillian said Wanda had no personal animosity towards Charlie, he found that info very interesting. When he flat out suggested war on himself (again, if this is Charlie on the line) and Stanley had shut him down as contrary to toolism, it would open the door to an end run around Parson. But instead, he knows attuned Tool on Tool warfare is something Parsons overlord will permit.

I've just belatedly noticed that Maggie is calling Stanley 'Lord', not 'Tool'. Is this a continuity error, or am I just about ten strips behind events again? Does seem in character for the way she /speaks/, but it's against Stanley's direct orders, and thinking about it following her Overlord's preferred term of address iss something I'd normally expect her to get right. Or, oh god, a feed-in for a conspiracy, is this really Maggie? I don't buy that myself, because she's providing accurate information; how could Charlie faking this particular call be of benefit to him? But I do know the author is quite sneaky enough to slip something like that in if he wants to...

That's well spotted, thanks! That's a good sign for the thinkagram really being from Maggie. We've seen Maggie say "Stanley the Tool" in Summer Update 9, but in that same update she uses "Lord" just as often. I think this means that failing to use "Tool" is very weak evidence, if it's evidence at all.

They're created by a 'Tool, and those things are pretty game-breaking.

I'd say that it's game breaking enough already without being given even more power.

0beron wrote:

When Saline croaked and brought about a similar situation, Sizemore made no mention of Stanley losing his dwagons, and I'll bet they weren't ALL in a single stack.

When Overlord Firebaugh croaked in what seems to be exactly the same situation, Wanda lost all the units that weren't in her stack. See Book 0, Episode 26.

0beron wrote:

Decrypted have no upkeep, and it seems one factor of units disbanding when the side ends is because their upkeep isn't linked to a Treasury or Purse anymore.

Uncroaked disband in that situation and they don't need upkeep either.

0beron wrote:

The MK is weird.

Yes, I think that the decrypted who are in the Magic Kingdom are probably safe from disbanding. In Episode 26 it looks like Overlord Firebaugh makes Wanda his heir to prevent her from disbanding, so I guess that casters in the field disband when their side ends, but casters in the Magic Kingdom certainly don't disband when their side ends, suggesting that the Magic Kingdom protects people from that.

When Saline croaked and brought about a similar situation, Sizemore made no mention of Stanley losing his dwagons, and I'll bet they weren't ALL in a single stack.

When Overlord Firebaugh croaked in what seems to be exactly the same situation, Wanda lost all the units that weren't in her stack.

This might be an apples and oranges comparison, hence why I chose Saline's case instead. I am suggesting that because the 'Tool Wielder survived in Saline's case, the units attached to it survived. Wanda's uncroaked were not created by a 'Tool.

_________________"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."

This might be an apples and oranges comparison, hence why I chose Saline's case instead.

We can either compare a hypothetical situation to a situation that we've seen or we can make wild guesses. We never saw what happened to any dwagons that weren't stacked with Stanley when Saline IV died, so that example isn't useful. We really have no foundation for supposing that a tool protects units from disbanding when the side ends.

The main danger off turn is Charlie attacking, unclear how well Stanley can play defense from a distance.

If Charlie attacks, it's gonna be GK City, and being IN combat is what Stanley is best at. So that's not a big concern.The main danger of Stanley running a side the "old fashioned way" is the prolonged consequences. Because of the situation with Charlie, Maggie might have just become pretty useless. Even if she is reunited with the Tool, her communications can be tapped unless the Great Minds figure out a way to defend against the 'Dish.

Maggie is in no sense "useless." Even if it is impossible to encrypt thinkagrams, she still has the immensely important power to form bimancer and trimancer linkups. I am reasonably confident that some combination of Maggie, Ace and Jack can defeat Charlie's thinkagram hacking capability.

When Saline croaked and brought about a similar situation, Sizemore made no mention of Stanley losing his dwagons, and I'll bet they weren't ALL in a single stack.

When Overlord Firebaugh croaked in what seems to be exactly the same situation, Wanda lost all the units that weren't in her stack. See Book 0, Episode 26.

All the units that weren't with Wanda were 'lost' because they ALL were in the capital and were croaked by the enemy. They didn't disband.

When a ruler falls, units in the field don't disband if there is an heir, because the heir becomes the ruler. If the capital is lost, they all go barbarian, but would likely Turn right back to the same side if it is reestablished.

_________________

Demon Lord Etna wrote:

Looks like I have to resort to the politician's golden rule: "If they can't prove it, deny, deny, deny."

If the capital is lost, they all go barbarian, but would likely Turn right back to the same side if it is reestablished.

Actually the side doesn't end when they go barbarian. The entire side becomes barbarian, except for the units that they lost because they were in the field at the moment when they lost the capital. If they capture a new capital the side just goes straight back to business as usual. This was demonstrated by Faq in Book 0. They lost their capital, but Banhammer was still the ruler, and when they got a new capital there was no turning required, except for the Lookamancer who turned to Haffaton and needed to turn back.

If the capital is lost, they all go barbarian, but would likely Turn right back to the same side if it is reestablished.

Actually the side doesn't end when they go barbarian. The entire side becomes barbarian, except for the units that they lost because they were in the field at the moment when they lost the capital. If they capture a new capital the side just goes straight back to business as usual. This was demonstrated by Faq in Book 0. They lost their capital, but Banhammer was still the ruler, and when they got a new capital there was no turning required, except for the Lookamancer who turned to Haffaton and needed to turn back.

When FAQ fell for the first time, there were exactly 2 types of units. Units in Banhammers stack, who woulnd't have disbanded anyway (Wanda being the source of info), and Jillian, who as heir, wouldn't have disbanded anyway (Stanley being the source of info)

We don't know what happened to the former FAQ cities or the former GK cities when the capital was reestablished. It's never said whether Stanley and Banhammer had to conquer the cities or make the inhabitants turn or they just turned automagically.

We don't know what happened to the former FAQ cities or the former GK cities when the capital was reestablished. It's never said whether Stanley and Banhammer had to conquer the cities or make the inhabitants turn or they just turned automagically.

Considering that Banhammer never stopped being the ruler of Faq when Faq fell, it seems hard to believe that Stanley stopped being the ruler of Gobwin Knob's cities just because they became barbarian. On top of that we also have the example of Jetstone and the fall of Spacerock. Apparently Slately wasn't even considering changing the capital until Charlie commanded it, but that would be very strange if losing the capital would have cost Jetstone all of its cities. Instead, I expect that losing Spacerock while it was still the capital would merely have briefly turned all of Jetstone's cities into barbarian cities until the ruler could get to Jetstone (the city) to re-establish the capital. We also have Parson talking about the possibility of losing Spacerock and how that would cost them the entire treasury, but he doesn't mention that it would also mean Gobwin Knob loses all of its cities, which I think would be in the same ballpark as losing the treasury. None of this is proof, of course, but I'm convinced.

Units do not disband when they are in the field unless the ruler is croaked and there is no heir. It has nothing at all to do with the capital.

If there is an heir, nothing happens at all, the rulership switches to the heir and all the units stay.

If the capital is lost, all units go barbarian, including the ruler and heir. No units are disbanded.

SO, when Stanley was heir and Saline was killed, other units in GK did not disband. Rulership simply switched to Stanley. We do not know if the capital was totally lost or what exactly happened. If anything, Stanley and all GK units when barbarian and then likely went right back to being GK when Stanley retook the capital.

_________________

Demon Lord Etna wrote:

Looks like I have to resort to the politician's golden rule: "If they can't prove it, deny, deny, deny."

Units do not disband when they are in the field unless the ruler is croaked and there is no heir.

That simply contradicts Book 0, Episode 26, as mentioned in an earlier post. I don't see how there can be any doubt about this, but perhaps I can make things more clear. Wanda was heir, then Overlord Firebaugh croaked, then Wanda was ruler and got to view the fall of Goodminton through her ruler senses, and when she saw the capital fall this happened:

"She looked up, and had only the barest moment to see it. Except for her stack, every one of her hundreds of troops vanished without so much as a sound. Her mount bucked, then looked frantically side to side at the empty road."

Units do not disband when they are in the field unless the ruler is croaked and there is no heir.

That simply contradicts Book 0, Episode 26, as mentioned in an earlier post. I don't see how there can be any doubt about this, but perhaps I can make things more clear. Wanda was heir, then Overlord Firebaugh croaked, then Wanda was ruler and got to view the fall of Goodminton through her ruler senses, and when she saw the capital fall this happened:

"She looked up, and had only the barest moment to see it. Except for her stack, every one of her hundreds of troops vanished without so much as a sound. Her mount bucked, then looked frantically side to side at the empty road."

Which really sucked, since uncroaked units have NO upkeep, but slowly decay instead. That would have been the perfect time to have them, when you are a barbarian side. A lot of people have confusion about the way things like this work because:

1. It has not been spelled out in universe yet, and2. The way it seems to work is totally stupid. I mean she was a commander and the ruler, and they were right next to her in the same hex. There was no gap in continuity of leadership at all.

Thanks for reminding us, Lilwik. I was one of the people thinking it worked differently until you reminded me.

A lot of people have confusion about the way things like this work because...It has not been spelled out in universe yet.

On the contrary, it has been spelled out very explicitly, people are just forgetful.

If a Ruler dies without Heir but the cities remain, they go neutral (frozen) and all field units disband.

If the capital is lost but Ruler or Heir remain, field units not stacked with one of those 2 disband. Any remaining non-capital cities go neutral.

We know this from a combination of Parson's education in Book 1, the fall of Goodminton, and the fall of Haffaton.What remains unclear is whether a 'Tool circumvents the above mechanics in any way, because the only situation we have as "evidence" (Stanley keeping his dwagons when Saline croaked) hasn't been recounted to us in full detail yet.

_________________"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."

What remains unclear is whether a 'Tool circumvents the above mechanics in any way, because the only situation we have as "evidence" (Stanley keeping his dwagons when Saline croaked) hasn't been recounted to us in full detail yet.

It's not really fair to imagine a loophole in the rules and then say that the rules are unclear because we haven't seen proof that the imaginary loophole isn't real. I could just as well say that it's unclear whether listing the first hundred prime numbers can protect a unit from disbanding. Until something suggests that a tool can protect units from disbanding, we should consider the rules clear and assume that loophole doesn't exist.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum